I used to use a program under Tiger called Proximisync that would detect the Bluetooth signal from my Ericsson phone when I would come home, and automatically sync wirelessly. It was a great program (when it worked). And this was way back in the days of the Palm Pilot!

For this kid to feel ripped off is stupid. Somehow it never occurred to him that his app was rejected because Apple was already working on the functionality in the OS?

Have Apple told him (and were able to prove) they already have that functionality developed and integrated in iOS5, I think he wouldn't have much reason to complain. But the way it was presented, it seems that Apple, at best, had that idea in the pipeline for future iOS developments, but not working code... Which makes whole case a bit shady.

And I really don't see what Apple asking for CV has to do with anything. If Apple wanted his code, they should have paid him for that. If they considered to recruit him, they should have asked for CV. Completely different issues.

Oh come on man, I don't have a dog in either fight, and I'd like to think I come in here with a pretty objective viewpoint, but I just can't read a comment like that and think "hmm.. that's logical".

Maybe it's just my failing 24 year old memory, but I can't think of anything from anyone that was referred to as an "app store", publicly/officially, or even just by users, in the mobile device world - and as I sit here thinking about it, I can't even think of anything in the PC world either.

But let's set that aside and concentrate on the matter at hand..

So we know you (and if I'm being honest I'm really speaking to everyone) wouldn't argue that this kid invented the theory of wirelessly syncing an iPhone, because that would just be idiotic (if I'm being honest, I'd have a hard time believing "wireless syncing" wasn't on the docket since before the iPhone ever hit store shelves). Of course there is one potential reality that could exist, resulting in legitimate "injury" or "loss" (if we're speaking "lawyerese"), but the fact that not a single one of the comments I've read here refers to it, tells me that 99.9% of you people are same people that take every opportunity you get to rail against Apple simply because you don't like something about the company, not because logic or sound reasoning has anything to do with it - the same people that have no idea what Apple is getting at when the company points out that the Galaxy S is the inbred cousin of the iPhone 3G, and at the end of the day, the same people that destroy any chance of these "forums" becoming a place for intelligent discussion.

The one factor I'm referring to, and the one factor that anybody should even be discussing, is whether or not any of the actual code from the supposed "stolen app" exists in iOS 5. That's it. Because no one with a sane mind would ever conceive of arguing that the kid invented the idea of wirelessly syncing an iPhone, but on the other hand, if that copied code exists, none of that even matters because Apple is then morally, but more importantly (in court), legally, bound to pay the kid for his work.

Hit up my first post on this topic, you're not alone (sadly, AI is starting to pull dumber, single minded people now a days ). I said the only way this guy has a case is if Apple foolishly used some of his code. And there's no way they would be that dumb.

It certainly sucks that Apple incorporated the same feature and thus he lost the opportunity to profit from this app, he had to know that wireless synching would be something that Apple would surely be working on at some point in time.

However, I do not agree with Apple blocking apps and then recreating their functionality internally. Legality aside, it didn't pass the "sniff test" and Apple would have benefited if they just would have purchased his IP, if only from the developer goodwill generated.

Apple had the wireless syncing coding for years. It's the only way Apple Tv can sync with a computer. There's nothing original with this kind of coding and seems pretty obvious that Apple was going to introduce this sooner or later.

"Stand up and defend his work"??? What exactly is he claiming Apple had done? It could be:
1. Apple stole "my" icon. Which is derived from two of Apple's previously used icons (wifi and iSync)
2. Apple stole my app or code. Prove it.
3. Apple stole "my" idea. So he has a patent on wifi syncing? I doubt it.

The f-ing hubris of some developers. Sheesh! I'm sure the FSF-loving liberanarchists over at /. are eating this story up.

He went with Cydia. That blew his chances of getting any compensation in any form. If he would've played it clean, then maybe. Sounds like they offered to pay him for his talents through a job, which he rejected.

He went with Cydia. That blew his chances of getting any compensation in any form. If he would've played it clean, then maybe. Sounds like they offered to pay him for his talents through a job, which he rejected.

Jailbreaking is legal. There's nothing wrong with going to Cydia...
Why do people assume that "fair" compensation (again, if you believe they did steal it) was them offering him a Job? That's idiotic. Not everyone is looking for a job.

Jailbreaking is legal. There's nothing wrong with going to Cydia...
Why do people assume that "fair" compensation (again, if you believe they did steal it) was them offering him a Job? That's idiotic. Not everyone is looking for a job.

As... difficult (please tell me you can pick THAT up)... as it was to tell through his misuse of grammar and spelling, yes, he's being sarcastic. Though the guy wasn't looking for a job, anyway.

Oh, the "[who's] looking for a job?" comment was clearly sarcastic, sounding like the guys should have taken the job because a lot of people don't have one. While it's unlikely, I was hoping that his stance that the guy should have taken the job was sarcastic.

I'm all for Apple, don't get me wrong, but the way this is presented by AI the clear conclusion is that Apple ripped off the developer (app and logo). Is it the whole story? Doubtlessly not, as I don't for one second believe AI has done the yeoman's work of delving into real research and performed the necessary interviews to vet this story.

Apple didn't offer the guy a job. They asked for his resume. I don't think there are very many software developers out there who would refuse to send in the resume - even if they didn't want the job.

Quote:

Originally Posted by LogicNReason

Oh, the "[who's] looking for a job?" comment was clearly sarcastic, sounding like the guys should have taken the job because a lot of people don't have one. While it's unlikely, I was hoping that his stance that the guy should have taken the job was sarcastic.

I'm all for Apple, don't get me wrong, but the way this is presented by AI the clear conclusion is that Apple ripped off the developer (app and logo). Is it the whole story? Doubtlessly not, as I don't for one second believe AI has done the yeoman's work of delving into real research and performed the necessary interviews to vet this story.

What? That's like journalism or something. Journalism is dying. It will be replaced by twitter and blogs.

Oh come on man, I don't have a dog in either fight, and I'd like to think I come in here with a pretty objective viewpoint, but I just can't read a comment like that and think "hmm.. that's logical".

Maybe it's just my failing 24 year old memory, but I can't think of anything from anyone that was referred to as an "app store", publicly/officially, or even just by users, in the mobile device world - and as I sit here thinking about it, I can't even think of anything in the PC world either.

But let's set that aside and concentrate on the matter at hand..

So we know you (and if I'm being honest I'm really speaking to everyone) wouldn't argue that this kid invented the theory of wirelessly syncing an iPhone, because that would just be idiotic (if I'm being honest, I'd have a hard time believing "wireless syncing" wasn't on the docket since before the iPhone ever hit store shelves). Of course there is one potential reality that could exist, resulting in legitimate "injury" or "loss" (if we're speaking "lawyerese"), but the fact that not a single one of the comments I've read here refers to it, tells me that 99.9% of you people are same people that take every opportunity you get to rail against Apple simply because you don't like something about the company, not because logic or sound reasoning has anything to do with it - the same people that have no idea what Apple is getting at when the company points out that the Galaxy S is the inbred cousin of the iPhone 3G, and at the end of the day, the same people that destroy any chance of these "forums" becoming a place for intelligent discussion.

The one factor I'm referring to, and the one factor that anybody should even be discussing, is whether or not any of the actual code from the supposed "stolen app" exists in iOS 5. That's it. Because no one with a sane mind would ever conceive of arguing that the kid invented the idea of wirelessly syncing an iPhone, but on the other hand, if that copied code exists, none of that even matters because Apple is then morally, but more importantly (in court), legally, bound to pay the kid for his work.

BOOM, headshot. Nailed it. I often feel like I'm getting stupider reading messageboard posts. 99% of the comments are knee-jerk cliched garbage based on preconceived feelings, rarely if ever employing real objectivity and a reasonable and rational assessment of the facts.

I still don't understand how Apple's can hold a Lodsys license agreement and share it with every developer on the planet.

Quote:

That's like saying one license agreement allows a large family of endusers to share a single copy of Mac OS X.

Which it does, as of Lion.

Quote:

For example, I have a family with over 200 members, four generation in multiple states and cities. If I decide to copy and distribute Mac OS X to all 200 of them, Apple would sue me over it.

LOL, as if you're that important.

And no, it's perfectly fine for you to do that with Lion as long as every single one of their computers uses YOUR account. Though as Apple IDs can only be used on a certain number of computers and as if they change that Apple ID to a new one (read: theirs), they're not allowed to keep using Lion, the point is moot.

Quote:

If Appel wins against Lodsys, I'm going to make 200 copies of Mac OS X and share it with my family, following Apple's example.

That's just wrong, wrong, and wrong! As much as I like Apple products and Steve Jobs, I think this young man was a victim and deserve a win in court. It was wrong for Apple to reject his App, it was wrong for Apple to steal his ideas, and it was wrong for Apple not to at least offer to pay for a license agreement. If Apple start ripping people off like this, they are going to become no morally better than IBM and Microsoft. By the way, at least Lodsys got a little money before Apple found a creative way to rip them off big time.

I still don't understand how Apple's can hold a Lodsys license agreement and share it with every developer on the planet. That's like saying one license agreement allows a large family of endusers to share a single copy of Mac OS X. For example, I have a family with over 200 members, four generation in multiple states and cities. If I decide to copy and distribute Mac OS X to all 200 of them, Apple would sue me over it. But then I say something like," the license agreement in place extends to all my family members and they are protected under the license agreement."

If Appel wins against Lodsys, I'm going to make 200 copies of Mac OS X and share it with my family, following Apple's example.

Maybe it's just my failing 24 year old memory, but I can't think of anything from anyone that was referred to as an "app store", publicly/officially, or even just by users, in the mobile device world - and as I sit here thinking about it, I can't even think of anything in the PC world

The issue is not whether Apple already had wireless sync planned or in development. The issue is whether they used this guy's code to ultimately implement the functionality (as I doubt he patented any methods he used). There is some circumstantial evidence that suggests they did. Trying to hire him is one such piece. His claim that Apple told him their engineers had seen his app is another. It doesn't mean they did, but it is a bit silly to claim there is no evidence to support his potential claim. Discovery could very well reveal more evidence. Or not, but he is within his rights to find out.

As for the wireless sync, some keep describing it as sync only to iCloud. That's not true. It actually includes wireless sync between iTunes on your personal computer and the iOS device.

That's just wrong, wrong, and wrong! As much as I like Apple products and Steve Jobs, I think this young man was a victim and deserve a win in court. It was wrong for Apple to reject his App, it was wrong for Apple to steal his ideas, and it was wrong for Apple not to at least offer to pay for a license agreement. If Apple start ripping people off like this, they are going to become no morally better than IBM and Microsoft. By the way, at least Lodsys got a little money before Apple found a creative way to rip them off big time.

I still don't understand how Apple's can hold a Lodsys license agreement and share it with every developer on the planet. That's like saying one license agreement allows a large family of endusers to share a single copy of Mac OS X. For example, I have a family with over 200 members, four generation in multiple states and cities. If I decide to copy and distribute Mac OS X to all 200 of them, Apple would sue me over it. But then I say something like," the license agreement in place extends to all my family members and they are protected under the license agreement."

If Appel wins against Lodsys, I'm going to make 200 copies of Mac OS X and share it with my family, following Apple's example.

My over all point is that some of you make it sound as if Apple extending him the possibility of a job was an insult.

Oh, then excuse me if I was unclear . I was not saying it was insult. Rather, I was saying that if you're of the belief that Apple DID do something wrong offering him a job (which they didn't actually do) is NOT an adequate means of compensation.

Agreed. When you submit to the appstore you don't submit the code, you submit the compiled app. So unless he sent his code to Apple separately for another reason (and I can't think why he would) they can't have stolen his code because they never had it.

Slightly off-topic, but if Apple's SDK *lets* developers see un-approved APIs then someone at Apple needs to read a book.

It doesn't. The private APIs aren't in any header files, aren't listed in the documentation and you can only find them by dumping the libraries. The nature of objective-c however is such that if you find out a method exists, you can call it and the library has to export the names of methods, you really can't hide them very well.

Apple's app store submission process actually looks for any uses in the compiled app of any private APIs or even apps which have used the same method name as a private API and the app is automatically rejected.

While I passionately support the exchange and debate of ideas, I also think it is important to remember that, under our current legal system, it is impossible to determine a person's entitlement to a legal remedy merely by discussing the matter on an online forum.

Many posts in this thread purport to declare a decisive and proper conclusion, notwithstanding that not a single poster claims to have any first hand knowledge of the facts other than having used this kid's app.

It may be the case that the publicly available information about this matter is complete and accurate. It may also be the case, however, that there is relevant information that has not been publicly disclosed. In either case, it is almost certain that, should litigation ensue, that the Federal Rules of Evidence will be called on by both sides to filter the proof offered up in any potential infringement case.

I guess my point is simply this: Regardless of whether this kid is a "Lodesys Lite," or the next Woz, we should all consider the degree to which we conclusorily assume that we "know" who the wrongdoer is in a particular case. We all may potentially end up in a situation where we depend on the impartiality of others for justice to be done.

I'm not saying it's okay for your work to be ripped off cause he chose not to work for them, but rather that he should have realized why Apple must have wanted him to work for them. If the iOS team were as impressed as his liaison implied, it would have been the perfect opportunity for him to gain prominence within Cupertino had he gone in and gotten involved.

I agree. It seems pretty clear they stole it.

I can only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow doesn't look good either.

In order to reach that conclusion, you would have to establish that Apple wasn't working on anything like that before this guy submitted his app, that the concept was not obvious, that Apple stole the guy's code, and so on. So far, no one has submitted any evidence to support ANY of the allegations.

All we know is that this guy submitted an app which was rejected. At a later time, Apple released an app which has some similar functionality.

If that's what you consider proof of theft, I sure hope that you never serve on a jury in a criminal case.

"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"Gatorguy 5/31/13